Supreme Court and the sealed envelope

It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, observed Viscount Gordon Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, some 83 years ago. That is one of the most often-quoted judicial comments. Which is why one wonders why the contents of a sealed envelope should be considered confidential in the ongoing case being heard by the Supreme Court of India on the Justice Mudgal committee report on illegal betting and spot-fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL), the biggest domestic T20 tournament in this country and perhaps in the world. Surely this is not a matter of national security which has to be kept confidential.

If the Mudgal committee indicted the BCCI president Srinivasan’s son-in-law Meiyappan of illegal betting and spot-fixing, then where is the need for another report in a sealed envelope which has to kept confidential and which need not be revealed to the people of India who have a right to know? The only reasons could be that the contents of the sealed envelope are not hard evidence or that they are too sensitive. If the contents of the sealed envelope are not hard evidence, then how much credence should be given to it since some of those involved are prone to making wild allegations when it comes to cricket and match-fixing?

Take the other proposition that the contents of the sealed envelope are too sensitive to be made public. Why should it be kept a secret from the public since IPL cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered a matter of national security? Keeping the contents of the sealed envelope confidential only adds to the confusion and speculation. It has been known for well over a decade that Dawood Ibrahim, one of the prime accused in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, has been running a global betting and match-fixing syndicate and that his henchmen have their fingers in every pie. Which could also include IPL.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes another oft-quoted non-judicial saying. The alternative to conflict of interest surely need not be anarchy where no one knows who is in charge until a judicial decision is announced at the last moment. It was obvious that there was a conflict of interest even when the IPL was launched some six to seven years ago and when India Cements, the company of which the then BCCI secretary N Srinivasan was the CEO, was allowed to bid for and buy the franchise for the Chennai Super Kings (CSK). A petition had subsequently then been filed in the Supreme Court by another former BCCI president A C Muthaiah, alleging conflict of interest vis-a-vis the CSK franchise. What is ironical is that some of those who are currently leading a self-acclaimed crusade to clean up Indian cricket were till a year ago writing lengthy opinion pieces on the editorial pages of leading newspapers on how wonderful the IPL was.

The Supreme Court has proposed on March 27 that someone like Sunil Gavaskar function as the interim head of the BCCI so as to facilitate the holding of a thorough investigatory probe into IPL on the basis of the contents of the sealed envelope, In an interview with NDTV for whom he comments on cricket matters, Gavaskar was asked about the statement he made some 10 months ago that Srinivasan had done a lot for Indian cricket and for former cricketers. “Everyone is innocent until he is proved guilty,” Gavaskar said, citing another oft-repeated judicial quote while stating that he was prepared to be the interim head of the BCCI if the Supreme Court wanted him to take on the responsibility.

Gavaskar also made two other points in his latest interview with NDTV when asked whether IPL should be suspended. He noted that when the original allegations of match-fixing in cricket were raised in 1999, no one had suggested that county cricket, Test matches or ODIs should be banned or suspended until the game was cleaned up. The game, he said, could continue even while the cleaning-up process was going on. Asked whether CSK and Rajasthan Royals (RR) should be suspended from the coming edition of IPL, Gavaskar noted that both teams had given immense pleasure to millions of fans.

However, if the IPL by-laws stipulate that a team can be suspended if its promoters or main officials indulge in acts that are detrimental to the image of cricket, then, of course, action should be taken against a franchise, irrespective of whether or not the team has won the tournament more often than its competitors. However, it makes little sense if a team is first suspended and then the final decision is announced that the franchise is not guilty.

Whatever decision had to be taken, should have been taken promptly. Whether the issue is one of conflict of interest or the Mudgal committee report, it serves no purpose if the process is unduly prolonged. Remember the BJP TV commercial which shows only one cricket captain appearing for the toss of a crucial match. Surely, IPL-reality need not follow TV-commercial art.